Is online piracy theft?

[km2]

Copying without a resulting purchase = theft, as it denies the artist of revenue, or gives someone access to something they could not afford.

Copying with subsequent purchase = not a theft, yet I believe its treading a thin line of acceptability re the mechanism used.

My only problem is that you're calling it theft. If you were just saying "Copying without a resulting purchase = wrong" and "Copying with subsequent purchase = not wrong", I could accept your standpoint and agree with it to a certain extent, but calling it theft based on that loss of potential revenue is where I'm having a problem. Theft has a very specific meaning, and I think trying to broaden that meaning does a disservice to our understanding of the problem.

We have varying terms for economic crimes. Theft, fraud, piracy, and others. They each have a specific meaning and I think we need to be able to keep those ideas separate, and deal with them as different things.

Intellectual property is just a much fluffier subject than black and white terms like theft allow. There's limits on the terms of copyrights and patents in years, where one day using an idea or song is "theft" and the next day it's perfectly legal. There's grey areas of fair use and all kinds of other legal loopholes that switch similar actions between the realm of "theft" and not. It's so different to the way we define theft of physical items that I just can't reconcile trying to call them the same thing, and for the sake of what? Making people feel that it's more wrong by using an emotive term like theft?

If one wants to win people over to the idea that copying without a resulting purchase is bad, one should argue on the merits of that, not try and tie it to theft and go "well we already know theft is wrong, copying without a resulting purchase is theft, ergo copying is wrong".

 

[[)roi(]]

My only problem is that you're calling it theft. If you were just saying "Copying without a resulting purchase = wrong" and "Copying with subsequent purchase = not wrong", I could accept your standpoint and agree with it to a certain extent, but calling it theft based on that loss of potential revenue is where I'm having a problem. Theft has a very specific meaning, and I think trying to broaden that meaning does a disservice to our understanding of the problem.

Sorry but we we are going to differ on this.

To have an environment where some pay and others "copy" should never be seen as acceptable.

Imagine if everyone were to "copy" instead of buying content. How ever could the media industry, actors, song writers, musicians, game developers, artists, ... survive?

This seemingly at first paradox, is simply not one -- whenever you take / "copy" something that you did not create or pay for the right to use -- you are stealing.

 

[alloytoo]

Let me try again, hopefully this time is less unambiguous vs my past posts.

Copying without a resulting purchase = theft, as it denies the artist of revenue, or gives someone access to something they could not afford.

No. It's copyright infringement, and may constitute unjust enrichment . Though how you would quantify unjust enrichment is an interesting debate in and of itself.

The mere act of copying does not deprive the copyright holder of anything. He still has his product and he can still sell his product.

Assuming one is not a countefeiters intent on offering copies of his product to the market then the measure to which someone is unjustly enriched is open to much debate.

Lets offer a few scenarios:

An intellectual property is copied (This is the point that the media companies begin to calculate their potential loss)

Do you own a legal copy?

Yes, you're converting it to different medium for your own use. (In my youth this was called "Home taping" and no, it didn't distroy the industry) This is fair use.

Yes, you're copying a portion of it to make a "Mix" (Mix would include video/and or text extraction) - Also fair use (So long as the "mix" isn't commercially reproduced, though fair use does extend to reviews, scholarly works etc)

Yes, you're copying it in it's entirety for some else. This is where the thief analogy breaks down. You're the one infringing copyright, but your friend is the one unjustly enriched. This is also a grey area in law, a copy for your friend 'might' constitute fair use too, though making it available online for the world to copy clearly isn't.

Unjust enrichment.

Unjust enrichment is a legal concept, however through the receipt of copyright material it is incredibly hard to calculate.

The music industry would have us accept their simple formula:

Number of copies made X recommended retail (probably for delux edition) = obscene amount of money.(OAOM)

Obscene amount of money is then broadcast to all in sundry as losses to the industry.

I wonder if they were actually awarded OAOM would they actually bother distributing OAOM to the packaging people, the transport people, the sales people?

The problem with OAOM is that it never existed.

Sure some folks might have been unjustly enriched, but if they had no disposable income to legally acquire the product, then they were never lost customers anyway.

Some might have, but would they have paid fully packaged delux edition pricing?

So they downloaded the whole album, and have listened to one track. They are unjustly enriched to the extent that 1/12th of the album Retail, (less distribution costs, less packaging less other incidentals) that's not going to add up to OAOM.

Studies have shown that since the advent of file sharing the total global spend on entertainment has not declined. They have been some shifts, games manufacturers are getting a bigger chunk of the pie, as have live acts.

The industry continues to make more movies and record more (mostly crap albums). That in and of itself is a great argument in favour of reducing copyright period.

 

[Elimentals]

OMW a industry that exist soly because they broke intelectual property laws is trying to tell me its wrong. WTF??

Hollywood only exist because of them breaking laws, See http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/edison_trust.htm

Not even covering the subject that they make money out of coping other people's ideas like Shakespeare or Comic book and what not. And they are trying to tell me its bad to copy other people?

GET REAL!!!!

EVERYTHING IS A REMIX <--- I would really like the people tell me its wrong to copy to go watch that full series. 4 videos

Sure people can not do it for free and need to get paid for a living but last time I checked they have no problems with finances See http://screenrant.com/the-avengers-box-office-opening-weekend-rob-169760/ (Joke is they copied that as well)

So maybe just should address real issues instead of creating problems like false borders and raised prices for developing countries. If its cheap enough and in easily available people would pay for said access, after all some people pay subscriptions to sites to pirate to media.

 

[[)roi(]]

Call it what you will, I can only agree with you as long as when you appropriate something that you were not entitled to and others pay for, it is regarded as an illegal activity.

I agree the formulas to equate financial losses in the media industry are wrong, as in most cases -- content "copiers" could not afford paying for as much content as they illegally consume...

Hence most "copying" does not equate directly to lost revenue, nevertheless it is still an illegal activity (contra to capitalism) and should be prosecuted as such.

Any other sentiments on the subject "like everything is a remix" leans on beliefs more a kin to socialism i.e. in specific opposition to capitalism.

I of course prefer the latter.

 

[Elimentals]

Any other sentiments on the subject "like everything is a remix" leans on beliefs more a kin to socialism i.e. in specific opposition to capitalism.

I of course prefer the latter.

Its not in direct opposite, it deals with loss aversion.

What I am saying is, if you copy then don't tell me not to copy. If you come out with 100% pure new material then you can tell me its bad to copy otherwise get knotted.

 

[[)roi(]]

Its not in direct opposite, it deals with loss aversion.

What I am saying is, if you copy then don't tell me not to copy. If you come out with 100% pure new material then you can tell me its bad to copy otherwise get knotted.

Sorry but I differ on this; unless the content is a 100% copy your point is a weak comparison i.e. illegal "copying" reproduces the content near to exact or exact.

Where do you draw the line, for example: "did you hear that in Avatar they used the word 'and'; same as in Star Wars, hence it's a copy, so it's ok for us to copy without paying "

If it was anyway all the same, just another remix or "the same old same old", then answer me why do people keep downloading it, and celebrating new movies, new TV shows, new music, new games, ...

Are they in your books just confused?

Clearly the content is original (there might be some minor inspiration), but that in no way justifies appropriating something you have no rights to without payment.

 

[Elimentals]

Sorry but I differ on this; unless the content is a 100% copy your point is a weak comparison i.e. illegal "copying" reproduces the content near to exact or exact.

If it was anyway all the same, just another remix or "the same old same old", then answer me why do people keep downloading it, and celebrating new movies, new TV shows, new music, new games, ...

Are they in your books just confused?

Clearly the content is original (there might be some minor inspiration), but that in no way justifies appropriating something you have no rights to without payment.

I am not saying its legal or should be done, I am saying if they can do it for whatever purpose then I can two. They copy to "remix" it, I copy to see if it was worth the effort.

 

[[)roi(]]

I am not saying its legal or should be done, I am saying if they can do it for whatever purpose then I can two. They copy to "remix" it, I copy to see if it was worth the effort.

Again in opposition to your argument; their use of prior art (even minor) is bound to result in legal action, hence they go out of their way to avoid 100% copies otherwise they pay for the right to do so.

In your example, you copy 100% without any regard for rights or payment, using only a weak prior art excuse to justify the illegal behavior...

Sorry never going to agree on this one.

 

[Elimentals]

Again in opposition to your argument; their use of prior art (even minor) is bound to result in legal action, hence they go out of their way to avoid 100% copies otherwise they pay for the right to do so.

In your example, you copy 100% without any regard for rights or payment, using only a weak prior art excuse to justify the illegal behavior...

Sorry never going to agree on this one.

I beg to differ, their aim is for me to own a copy.

I watch it to see if its worth purchasing a copy, so minor use of prior art is met with minor ownership aka I just watch it.

If the content is original enough, then I will buy a copy, simple as that

 

[[)roi(]]

I beg to differ, their aim is for me to own a copy.

You're right, but that is at a price i.e. never free to "copy".

I watch it to see if its worth purchasing a copy, so minor use of prior art is met with minor ownership aka I just watch it.

Here's your paradox: most people have to pay to "just watch it"; why should you be entitled to not pay?

If need you need a demo, download or youtube the trailers.

If the content is original enough, then I will buy a copy, simple as that

I sincerely doubt that, more likely it stays on some HDD for a future date.

Btw what paradox will you creatively use to justify copying / keeping of music, games, ...

 

[Elimentals]

Btw what paradox will you creatively try use to justify copying / keeping for music, games, ...

Games, I have Steam(About 300+ titles in it) so can not exactly debate anything there as I believe they got the right idea, no false reagents with demo weekends and game demo's, also after some time the price drop so if you do not want prime access you can always get the content for dirt cheap esp the Holiday value packs

Music on the other hand I see MP3's for demo's for the live performances. Kind of like you see YouTube trailers for movies

 

[km2]

Hence most "copying" does not equate directly to lost revenue, nevertheless it is still an illegal activity (contra to capitalism) and should be prosecuted as such.

Any other sentiments on the subject "like everything is a remix" leans on beliefs more a kin to socialism i.e. in specific opposition to capitalism.

Capitalism is a fantastic system for its intended purpose of prioritising the usage of limited resources.

Prime land is a limited resource (one person is farming something on it, another one cannot).
Doctors are a limited resource (better doctors command higher rates and if you really want the best treatment, you pay more for it and so we try to optimise their use).
Electricity is a limited resource (it takes peoples time to dig coal out and build power plants, so you have to decide if switching on that heater in the winter is worth making all those people work for you).

An electronic copy of Photoshop on the other hand is not a limited resource. There is no scarcity where if one person uses a copy, another person would have to do without. Your copy of Photoshop does not become worse as more people use it.

There is a limited resource attached to the original creation of a product such as Photoshop (the time of the team who developed it), and we certainly need to incentivise people to make products such as that, but once it's made we should be taking advantage of the benefits that come from this.

If an author makes the best Maths textbook that over its lifetime makes R10 million but only touches the lives of 100 000 students, we should be happier to live in a world where he still makes his R10 million, but we duplicate that textbook to millions of students. He loses nothing, but millions have benefited. That's not something we can do with land, doctors, or electricity, but it's something we sure can do with intellectual property and it's a goal I believe we should strive towards.

So to me the moral position on piracy is never about the actual distribution of the product. Doesn't matter if one person or a million have a copy of it. It's about making sure that people are encouraged to continue making great products via throwing money at them. We only have limited money ourselves so don't go and buy a piece of software or music where you don't know if you'll like it and end up encouraging the wrong thing, and never end up giving other software or music a chance because you already spent that cash. Pirate it first, decide if you like it, and then with a fully informed opinion of good and bad media out there, throw your money at the good stuff.

To come back to a gaming example, League of Legends is a free-to-play online game that makes its money when players buy cosmetic items in game. I feel that it's morally better to give money to a game like that that I've enjoyed, than to give money to a game that I may have pirated in the past but wasn't good.

 

[[)roi(]]

Games, I have Steam(About 300+ titles in it) so can not exactly debate anything there as I believe they got the right idea, no false reagents with demo weekends and game demo's, also after some time the price drop so if you do not want prime access you can always get the content for dirt cheap esp the Holiday value packs

Same for me re Steam

Music on the other hand I see MP3's for demo's for the live performances. Kind of like you see YouTube trailers for movies

Even with the regional restriction crap, I still prefer to buy online, far higher quality and variety than other sources -- I think iTunes and Amazon are quite on par with Steam.

 

[[)roi(]]

Capitalism is a fantastic system for its intended purpose of prioritising the usage of limited resources...

You start off making sense and then all of sudden you slip off to socialist ideals, and only where it suits your opinion.

The systems btw are mutually exclusive, you either accept all the tenets of capitalism or none...

 

[km2]

You start off making sense and then all of sudden you slip off to socialist ideals, and only where it suits your opinion.

The systems btw are mutually exclusive, you either accept all the tenets of capitalism or none...

There is no black and white, capitalism vs socialism world. It's not good vs evil, it's not right vs wrong, it's not ying vs yang. It's a system, and it's a system good for some things. There are things that are limited resources and there are things that are not. Capitalism is great for distributing limited resources, it's not great for the things that aren't.

 

[[)roi(]]

There is no black and white, capitalism vs socialism world. It's not good vs evil, it's not right vs wrong, it's not ying vs yang. It's a system, and it's a system good for some things. There are things that are limited resources and there are things that are not. Capitalism is great for distributing limited resources, it's not great for the things that aren't.

The tenets of capitalism are not just limited to "distributing limited resources" -- it's far more complex than that.

Capitalism is generally considered to be an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit or income by individuals or corporations.

Some have also used the term as a synonym for competitive markets, voluntary exchange, wage labor, capital accumulation, or personal finance...

So why are artists, media houses, software houses, ... not allow to expect payment for their services and/or goods, and accumulate wealth?

Hence only half of your arguments make sense in light of your capitalism analogies.

 

[alloytoo]

Call it what you will, I can only agree with you as long as when you appropriate something that you were not entitled to and others pay for, it is regarded as an illegal activity.

I agree the formulas to equate financial losses in the media industry are wrong, as in most cases -- content "copiers" could not afford paying for as much content as they illegally consume...

Hence most "copying" does not equate directly to lost revenue, nevertheless it is still an illegal activity (contra to capitalism) and should be prosecuted as such.

Any other sentiments on the subject "like everything is a remix" leans on beliefs more a kin to socialism i.e. in specific opposition to capitalism.

I of course prefer the latter.

Copyright infringement is not illegal per se.

It requires the assertion of the copyright holders rights.

 

[eltherza]

Here are some considerations

NIN
Some time in 2007 Nine in nails told the crowd to "steal" their music and keep stealing their music. The reasons behind this is that NIN felt that the prices of the CD were far to high. The have changed business models and are no longer part of some huge media group. This buys fan loyality and exposes them to new fans.

If you look at successful artists they are millionaires. They don't actually need any more money after a single hit which shows music is drastically overpriced. Even with "piracy on a rampage", I still see artists becoming rich even though they a small piece of the pie.

Youtube
Youtube is essentially streaming piracy if you think about it. Throw on adblock plus to skip ads and suddenly you have free streaming music. Why can VEVO accept youtube playing songs "for free" but not other providers [AKA torrents], it makes little sense to me.

But youtube also has pushed alot of unknowns into the spotlight because of the "free" business model [please don't bring up that youtube and uploaders make money from ads - I'm talking about the public not paying anything]

Valve
Gabe, that guy who owns Steam, has done something a little more brilliant. Since steam and uncapped/cheap bandwidth it's easier and cheaper to buy games. It competes with piracy and out does it in many ways. Sure, there are some issues (AKA having to be online, but hey - if you are downloading torrents you're online anyway).

Device lock
I buy music, I immediately download the "illegal" mp3 version. Why? Because the illegal MP3 version lets me play my songs in the car, on an ipod, on my andriod tablet, on my phone. Last time I bought a CD, I didnt even open the case and use the CD.

And then there is this...
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The providers of this content need to up their game, so long as pirating is EASIER, FASTER, LESS RESTRICTIVE you'll get legitamate consumers rather pirating. Price is one factor, but as soon as you start to annoy the people who WOULD PAY, you start to lose the battle.

 

[simbao53]

I always live by the fact that I wouldn't buy the content anyway. If a Pc game is good enough I buy it. The problem with most games these days is that there is no demo anymore so there is no way to test the game out if you like it or not.

+1 plus the distribution model is not good enough; I would pay for some TV show episodes if they were available to rent or buy per episodes like in the case of itunes in the US, I know most shows by public broadcaster like ABC,CBS... are available to watch online for free within the US.

I would gladly pay for such shows if they were made available here within the same terrible, I will not wait for 6 months or how ever long it takes DStv to buy the show and then I have to pay the full bouquet price for some other channels I will not even spend more than 1 minute on!